I have been working on the test cases.
A current draft can be found:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Dec/att-0068/00-t
I have been flagging files and tests as to whether they are in OWL Lite, OWL
DL, or OWL Full.
*None* of the previous tests are in OWL DL or OWL Lite.
Maybe I have misunderstood what OWL DL is.
As I understand it OWL DL is the range of the mapping from the abstract
syntax.
Thus, even a test, such as:
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-test/#proposedRDFXMLFunction-FunctionalProperty005
(proposed by Peter)
fails to be in OWL DL because it is missing triples that are always produced
in the mapping.
e.g. considering the premises:
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:owl ="http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#"
xmlns:eg ="http://www.example.org/">
<owl:FunctionalProperty rdf:about="http://www.example.org/foo#prop" />
<owl:Thing rdf:about="http://www.example.org/foo#object" />
</rdf:RDF>
(or as triples)
eg:foo#prop rdf:type owl:FunctionalProperty .
eg:foo#object rdf:type owl:Thing .
This is not OWL DL, not because of any substantive reason, but simply
because in the abstract syntax it is not possible syntactically to say that
eg:foo#prop rdf:type owl:FunctionalProperty .
without also saying
eg:foo#prop rdfs:domain owl:Thing .
and choosing between saying either:
eg:foo#prop rdfs:range rdfs:Literal .
eg:foo#prop rdf:type owl:DatatypeProperty .
or:
eg:foo#prop rdfs:range owl:Thing .
eg:foo#prop rdf:type owl:ObjectProperty .
These restrictions are such that, any hand written RDF/XML will fail to be
OWL Lite or OWL DL, unless immense care is taken to repeatedly say the
obvious.
I could go as far as to suggest that the restrictions will make OWL DL
unusable with RDF/XML.
All-in-all we seem to be creating a situation where two communities will
speak two varieties of OWL and any interoperation between them will be quite
unlikely.
Jeremy